User talk:GGranddad

Talk here.

Have you ever edited under another username?[edit]

Looking at your initial edits, it's clear that you're not a total newbie. Have you edited Wikipedia under a previous username?

Have you? GGranddad (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I've been editing since 2009 as you can see from my contribution history. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, GGranddad. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GGranddad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not sure what is going on here, someone has blocked me for being someone else, well I am not someone else, I am me and I have not done anything wrong on wikipedia and you have no reason whatsoever to block me. You certainly have no evidence that I am who you claim I am. Absolute disgrace, blocking people just because you feel like it. I have put in good work here and get blocked for no reason. I would like to be unblocked being as I have not done anything wrong. GGranddad (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Evidence is not required, as this isn't a court of law. WP:DUCK is sufficient here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can we unblock GGrandad pending the outcome of the Checkuser? Since his edits are not rank vandalism I think a more deliberative approach would be appropriate. DocumentError (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was not banned for Vandalism most of the socks operators don't.He was banned for his WP:DE for example one of his edits in this reincarnation is sourcing Israeli spokesman statement to Muslim brotherhood site.--Shrike (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something that can be resolved through a discussion regarding RS and doesn't require the imposition of a penultimate penalty like indefinite blocks. DocumentError (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He as a person was blocked from Wikipedia if he want to return he should take an WP:OFFER.--Shrike (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my request that the Checkuser investigation be finished and he be unblocked in the interim (or the term of his block be lowered to 48 hours). Otherwise, if he is exonerated, this matter is likely to fall through the cracks. DocumentError (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking obvious socks is standard policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of this policy, at least insofar as it applies when an active sock investigation is occurring. Can you point to it? DocumentError (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no active SPI to my knowledge.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]